tv Today in Washington CSPAN September 4, 2010 2:00am-6:00am EDT
i think the republicans have to take that on front and center and it's got to be some sort of plan that is largely going to be -- it'll have some elements in it are going to the boucher eyes, but it's got to move in a direction towards a free-market state-based system are you a competition across state lines. there a lot of plans out there that do that and i think one of the great things about going into 2012, you're going to congressmen and governors running for president with the most free-market plans out there. they've got to have a very strong understanding of that to replace the obama plan. .. >> this is my point earlier.
it is a matter of great prudence to see how you move and the right direction. there is a difference between accepting the deep crevasse of an idea of recognizing that you have to start there. the question is where you are going. the public has to explain why the necessary steps to moving in the right direction or to get some place. if the agenda of conservatives and republicans is dependent upon making a pure fun argument in legislative form, even though the american people are moving rapidly in the right direction, they are not there yet. this is a prudential question about how you build this coalition overtime and get it to where you want to go i think. >> but also, the question applies, the theoretical question, beyond a prudential how do you get to where you are going to go?
well, where are you going to go? i think the conservative argument on health care for instance needs to be informed by many things by fred duval has written about the importance of saying that there are really only two paths here. we can control spiraling health care costs through central government mechanisms or we can rely on market mechanisms and free people choosing freely and we can reorient our welfare state along the idea that in a society wealthy enough to have a welfare state they were going to be a lot of people who don't need most of what the welfare state does. we don't need to enroll everybody and obamacare. we can make crude and choices and help people who really need help. >> the last word and a good word. thank you very much hannah and thank you everybody. [applause]
>> next, a look at presidential campaigns. after that, the staff of the cook political report looks at elections in the 2010 elections and then the candidates in the california senate race face-off of a debate. >> tomorrow, on washington journal, kristie arslan talks about congressional legislation. jendayi frazer talks about the situation in sudan in charles peters talks about his biography of lyndon johnson. that starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> there is nothing about finance that is rocket science. you think about ponzi schemes, the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a buck that they are not
smart enough to understand how that stock is to be invested. >> in 2007, analyst meredith whitney was the first to predict major losses for city group. she is our guest sunday night on "q&a." 's now, the impact of scandals and political candidates. this is 45 minutes. screen is professor lara brown who is the author of this book, "jockeying for the american presidency." we're going to be talking about presidential campaigns and elections and congressional campaigns and elections and scandals. professor brown, 44 men have sebbed as president of the united states. do they have anything in common? is there one commonality among all 44? guest: well, that's exactly what i set out to find.
i tend to think about presidents as being a group of winners. they all essentially made it through the election process. and it's a difficult process to and it's a difficult process to say the least. of course, you know, there are a few who inheritted the chair. but they are not the norm. and the vast majority are what i call oper tunists. they are people who perceive and exploit opportunities in the environment and turn those to their favor, and it helps them win. host: all 44 have been oper tunists? guest: no. about 75%. host: let's start with who wasn't an oper tunist. guest: madison was not. when you look at these folks, the people who haven't been considered oper tunists tended to get there because they were vice president or it was typical in the election that you could see that they would win.
so for example, james blew cannon is not an oper tunist, and when you understand his election, it makes sense, because free monte and -- split that vote, which helped to elect blew cannon. host: how about gerald ford? guest: yes. one of the things you see is many of these individuals were not oper tunists. they end up having long tenure ins one institution or another. and they tend not to have sort of a variety of political jobs across the spectrum, and over their careers. host: why was james madison not an oper tunist? guest: i think it was because of the length of their service. if you look at how i measure oper tune i678, i look at it in breadth of experience over depth of experience. essentially if you've spent many, many, many years and not
had that many different positions, you're disadvantaged. and from an intuitive level, why i think that makes sense, the more positions you've served in, the more views of politics you have gained, then the more likely you are to find and see the opportunities as they come. host: you open with james k. polk. why? guest: i do. because i think he is the quintessential candidate people dismiss as having been this dark horse that some how he just lucked into a nomination, and by golly, he ended up as president, and it was all owing to his party. and i just didn't buy that story. there are so many individuals who would love to have their party pick them. so the real question in my mind was how does a party actually select?
and how does a person maneuver themselves into a place where they become the cloice of their party? host: one of your last chapters was the oper tunism of as prance is about loseers. why was henry -- never elected president of the united states? guest: i think because henry clay had a difficult time learning. when i'm looking at this experience issue, what i'm trying to get at is how much trying to get at is how much are these individuals learning throughout their political career? i think we all have run into people who we know who have a lot of experience and haven't learned much over their life from their experiences? and i think unfortunately henry clay ends up being that person. he's very much the same person he was when he sort of first became speaker of the house. that he was leitner his life as
he's running in 1844 and even making another attempt in 1848. all of his losses teach him lessons that then he goes on to use to great effect later. host: political oper tunist? guest: yes. host: yoo license is s. grant? guest: he is considered one of the highest oper tunists and because of that he gets thrown out, because he really didn't have any political experience before he became president. so is his breath number, the number of positions he eserved end up way outside the norm. host: harry trueman. guest: trueman is one of those interesting things. as i recall, i would have to go back and look at my data.
but as i recall he is actually an oper tunist, but it's because he served sort of short term in many of his underlying positions. host: barack obama. guest: he is officially not. but there was one from the 2008 election that actually had one of the highest scores. certainly higher than president clinton. host: why? guest: because he had run for more offices in a short period of time, where as senator clinton, at the time i counted her first lady experience as essentially one position, eight years. so that essentially disadvantages her. host: with barack obama, did he have a sense of the environment at the time? i mean, did he take advantage
of that? guest: our old oper tunist, those who won the presidency prior to the modern era. prior to the -- their oper tunism scores are made up of very real depth and breadth. but now they are much shorter. so my favorite example is george w. bush had basically run or served in three different offices and served a total of six years when he went into the presidency. when you compare that to thomas jefferson, i recall 19 positions he had run or served for in those years, so close to a .5 oper tunism score.
but i would argue that thomas jefferson probably would have beaten george w. bush in a heartbeat. host: well, the numbers are up on the screen. we're talking campaign elections and we're going to talk with lara a little bit about congress. the numbers are on the screen. you can send us a tweet at twitter.com/cspanwj or an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. those are all our addresses. allow 30 days between your calls, please. when it comes electing members of congress, do voters have short-term memory? guest: no. i think really what happens is the electoral cycle works in such a way that it ends up protecting incumbents. so incumbent bentz with scandals tend to get
re-elected. and all my work on scandals show 2/3 that do decide to run, win. while initially this makes it sound like voters don't really care about character or scandals don't bother them, when you're asked to investigate it, the problem is primary elections are where voters vote on character and so unless an incumbent gates strong challenge in a primary, given the number of seats in a juryy mandatoriered district, it's unlikely they will lose an election. host: well, give us a couple current so called scandals going on in congress and how you think they'll fare. >> well, rangel from new york, he doesn't seem to want to resign or retire. there's many individuals who have called for that. he has clearly some
financial-type scandals, and he's really having the most kind of challenging primary he's ever had and yet, it's highly unlikely any of these other challengers will actually knock him off in the prirle. and he has for the last decade been winning his district by on average about 90% of the vote. so it doesn't matter if he loses 30% of the vote because of the candle, he'll still win. so. host: his primary, september 14, tuesday, september 14. adam clayton pile his challenger, the grandson of the man charlie rangel defeated of course. does he stand a chance? >> no. yonks. i mean, part of -- i don't think so. i mean, part ofs the because there's a couple other primary races, too, and things you see happen in these primaries, the multiple challengeers if there are multiple challengeers, the
multiple challengeers eat up the vote that's willing to vote against the incumbent. so if there are 40% who say let's get rangel out. they'll distribute their votes across the three challengeers. host: maxine waters? guest: another that's very guest: another that's very likely to be re-elected. her primary has will ever been and on average won 80% of the vote in this decade. and as far as i know, she doesn't really have any challenger to be heard from or seen. so again, the calculus of the member is if i'm going to win, why would i retire or resign? and the calculus for many strategic challengeers who might want to take them on, they take a look at the district and say i can't win no matter what, so why should i try? host: why was mark foley, who had a scandal in september, why
did he drop out of congress and drop out of the race. could he have won? you say 2/3 of the members that have scandal or are tainted get re-elected? >> yes. one of the things that is interesting about this. some of those with the more severe scandals or kind of scanned also this garner a great deal of attention like mark foley, like eric mossa, they do tend to essentially say i'm not even going to try this, because i'm sure somebody is going to come after me. and in addition to that. in addition to that, i think you do see underlying those dynamics, they have more competitive districts. tom delay and -- both ran for the primary and won their primaries. and then they took a look at their general election elek trats and realized they might have a tough time, and their republican party was very upset
with them for continuing to do this, because then it might translate to a november loss. >> lara brown, you differentiate between democratic scandals and republican scandals. >> i do. guest: part of this has to do with the fact that i believe democratic voters have different expectations of their members than republican members. and this is where the charge of hypocrisy becomes, i think much more problem atic for individuals who have had scandals. democrats are reportedly there to help poor people, and to, you know barack obama said famously, 13r5ed the wealth. that ends -- spread the wealth. that ends up turning into that ends up turning into getting them into more trouble when it comes time to a scandal with monetary intact. the reverse is true for republicans. stand on family values, when they have a scandal with morality, they'll get in more
trouble. >> -- host: our guest is lara brown, author of "jockeying for the american presidency." he newest book. new orleans, frank, independent line. you're on. caller: how are you doing? i'd just like to make the comment. i'm kind of an amateur history buff. and i see very little differences going back to rome to today. and anywhere between, how politics are run. and if we don't get around to really fixing what's wrong with america, like the debt we owe foreign countries, and as long as as -- it's american people, it's the foreign country that is has the rope around our neck. host: professor brown, any accident in guest: yes. one of the things i think is
interesting is there's a interesting is there's a comment and understanding that politics is sort of the way it's always been, and i think that's right. i think we get into trouble when we think that there was an era where presidential candidates or presidents were some how less ambitious or less self-interested or less partisan than they are today. we have seen them, and i think my study shows they have always been inordinate liam bishes individuals. host: loretta on our democratic line. has it been 30 days since we talked to you? caller: yes it has. i'm really fascinated with her book. i like it. and i'm going to pick it up. i have three issues that i wanted to speak on. wanted to speak on. the first is the scandal part. republicans and the scandal part. that's fine. that's ok. they always save tidbits twaud
the end of a campaign, and they spring it on you. but the republicans have angered blacks, latinos, gays, now the muslims all on racism and women over abortion. so based on my crystal ball. the republicans will not win and not take over any majority in the house or senate, and the other issue is the outsourcing bill where the democrats have brought it up on the floor a couple of times, and the republicans keep voting no to keep outsourcing our jobs, and a lot of these republican callers are calling in about the job situation. and they don't know that the republicans are voteing to keep outsourcing our jobs. host: loretta, last point? caller: the tea party arrest aspect. they are so -- the tea party as epect.
they are talking about amendment rights, bringing firearms to rallies, and the glen beck wannabe preacher he wants to join, i wish i could join your paper, because i would love to write. because looking at this from the outside, it's kind of comeical because i think all the media people are looking at things from their vanityage point, they don't get to see it point, they don't get to see it like we do. host: all right. loretta, we'll talk to you again 30 days. we brought up -- she brought up some very interesting things. guest: yes. let me start with the idea that certainly there's been great partisan betrayal and huge dialogue on whether or not racism has been, you know, part of its dialogue and part of -- that's going on. i do think that there are
legitimate concerns about how race is discussed in the public sphere. but with that said, i also think it's important to understand that the tea party movement is not -- i don't think surprising. i think many people seem to believe thats the surprising. s the unusual. or it's nothing nothing to be concerned with. i think when you actually look deeper, from my perspective many, of these people were probably pro- -- per rote voters and agreed with the issue ross perreault brought up then agreed with newt gingrich and when president obama was a sort of big government republican, in 2005 and 2006, i think they ended up leaving and dropping out, and now they are back. so from my perspective, this is
not surprising. and i see it to be very much the flip side of the anti-war movement. the cindy she hans that were active and engaged during the 2005-2006 period. how she also predicted. her crystal ball said democrats will retain the house of representatives and the senate. what does your crystal ball say? guest: mine is more closely aligned with charlie cook and larry saveltose which is what we're looking at is a very large wave where there's a great deal 06 -- deal of voter re-sent maintenance and anger and i think disgust with both parties. one of the interesting things is outparties don't usually get blamed when the in party is sort of there. so there's been a lot of comments about whether or not, you know, republicans are putting up good candidates. whether these tea party
candidates will be able to effectively challenge the democrats. i think really when you look back in history, when you have one of these "throw out the bums" elections, it's quite indiscriminate and the name you recognize is the name you don't want. host: i'm going back to the short-term memory thing. ohio voted for president obama. just saw a recent poll that said if they could vote begin, 42% barack obama or 0 -- 50%-plus, bush. do we turn on our politicians? guest: i believe there are some that don't have strong political leanings but strong ideological beliefs, and much of that has to do with -- there are times when our country has been happy. usually those times are when say president reagan was
actually negotiating with tip o'neal in the house when president clinton was negotiating with speaker gingrich. when the compromises were coming, you didn't see as much anxious -- as much angst. but when you saw this manyal negotiating from their ideological median point, the country gets tired of that. host: betheseday, maryland. caller: my question relates to the oper tunism concept and how it relates overtime. i realize you're using it to explain individual mote i was for individual actors and i wonder if you're running the risk of modern oper tunism distorting our view for those of the past. to be called an oper tunist today suggests perhaps you're not truly passionately
committed to a certain set of quds and that rather you're more of a careerist. and that the motives for entering politics as a career are somewhat different from 2010 than it would have been in 18 10. host: so you're saying the word of oper tunist is a negative slur? caller: in today's language. guest: thank you for that question. that's actually exactly why i use this word. one of the things that's very interesting. ened the book does start with a quote by wood drove wilson that says oper tunism should not be said as though it were a slur. in fact, most politicians are looking under a majority. he said i've never known any politician looking for a minority. i think he's right.
they have 20 work with the op opportunities that are in the environment. and while there's a negative and while there's a negative con me toation to it, when we think about opportunity, generally, we typically believe people who do not take advantage of fortuitous circumstances are actually rather foolish. in regards to polk in my introduction, where i say that should he have not tried to actually become president when martin van buren sort of stepped on the wrong side of the texas annexation issue? yes, he exploited his opportunities. he was an oper tunist by all accounts. was he negative for doing that? i'm not so sure. caller: hello. fascinating topic. and i think i'm going to run out and buy this book. [laughter] caller: one question i have for professor brown.
is there a chapter in there on williams jennings bryant, who ran for the presidency three times and lost? and also i read that he may be the one 19th century politician who may be most relevant to the issues we're facing today, and i wonder if he were running today, first of all, which party would he be running with? and also would the same issues apply today? apply today? guest: fantastic question. thank you for that. i do have a chapter on william mcinly, so the case study on william mckinley -- williams generalings bryant in some ways, like henry clay, seems not to necessarily learn from his behavior over the course of his blil political career. wheanched you look at this actual election and you look at how brian campaigned, he really
gave away the northeast. which ha had been, actually, new york had been fundamental to groveral cleveland being the only democrat actually elected for about a 60-year period of time. and had williams jennings bryant not given up on new york and those sort of sound, gold new yorkers, then he would have perhaps been able to carry this presidency. host: at the beginning of this program, we asked our viewers regarding the "vanity fair" issue that came out with sarah palin, what's our fascination with sarah palin? guest: i think our fascination right now is really related to this idea of outsiders. i mentioned in the book that i i mentioned in the book that i think when you look over time at all of these. you see that they are competing to become different ideals at different moments in time.
our modern system has an ideal that says you should be essentially an outsider. an ideological leader. and somebody who essentially overtakes your party. so interestingly enough, this really, from my perspective, in the republican party, started with reagan. and i think that's where you see sarah palin trying to claim that same kind of mantle. host: we're talking with professor lara brown, author of "jockeying for the american presidency." about campaigns and elections. your calls. up networks, a democrat from florida. florida. hi. . .
whether you look can't all of the discussion about impeaching -- look at all the discussion about impeaching bush during his presidency, i think that is valid. and then you're actually look at the fact that they did impede president clinton. of course, they did not remove him from office. one of the things that you have seen is as the country is as incredibly competitive as it is, if we look down the line and say, we are still the country we were in 2000, which is essentially a 50/50 nation, and from there, things going back and forth, usually, the party in power not only has more opportunity for scandal, but also more opportunities for muckraking.
host: i want to get to specifics here. essentially, democrats are allowed the sex scandals, republicans are allowed money scandals. caller: yeah, that is what i've found in all my years of research. typically, democrats have essentially four given morality- type scandal and republicans have been essentially tossed from office, especially in the primaries, individuals who were engaged in those things. host: like william jefferson with the money scandal -- caller: he was all right. -- guest: he was all right. i have a colleague and we were engaging in scandals in this decade.
we both agreed that things have changed in the last 10 years and clinton's impeachment. there is a difference in how the party can be heard about these individuals candles and how congress has been perceived as much more corrupt. there is much more pressure to resign. a caller from to massachusetts. caller: will deliver clinton ever run from -- hillary clinton ever run again and will patrick ever return? host: patrick kennedy. guest: certainly, the kennedys have had long, illustrious careers, some of them at the presidential level, senatorial
level and congressional level. i'm not sure where they're headed. with regard to hillary clinton, she is certainly well positioned were she to run. host: in a primary against barack obama in 2012. guest: i do not think she would take on because she is not the person who would be well- positioned in a primary. the person who would be would be former gov. howard dean, who could do sort of what ted kennedy did with jimmy carter. host: because of the focus on economic and domestic issues? guest: and also because he was a doctor and he probably should have been put in charge of health care with this administration. if they wanted to explain to the progressive side of the party that there were only a certain policy prescriptions that they were able to get.
in other words, i think it in other words, i think it actually chose the wrong messenger to be secretary of health and human services. governor sebelius was a fantastic governor of kansas, but she was also a conservative democrat. she is probably not the person to be talking to what is referred to as the professional left. howard dean would have been a much more effective messenger. i also think that given that he was ousted from the dmz, -- the was ousted from the dmz, -- the dnc, there are many progressives in the democratic party that welcome his return as a true progress of. host: could another republican in 2008 have given barack obama a better run for his money? guest: here is one thing that is interesting about that election, if you look at the data, that election is actually fairly close until about september 15.
and when lehman brothers goes bankrupt and the economy falls precipitously off the cliff, you have the american public saying we have had enough of the republican party. we do not care who the messenger is. we are done. host: good morning in colorado. caller: i was wondering if you caller: i was wondering if you have any background on of the speaker of the house in the 1930's. guest: yes, thank you, and my book does. it i would discusses james g. blaine and grover cleveland and
the maneuvering early in the party. there was a desire to have someone that was more progressive, not as tied to the bosses, and not perceived as corrupt. which is hard -- to a and it is fascinating about this time. if we, in many ways, are repeating the late 1870's, 1880's europe in their meanness to theach other and the voters o discuss an accurate that led to -- and the voters getting disgusted. that led to a change and things becoming more progressive. host: i just want to show this. you talk about the early party
time, but strong party time, and the modern party time, but you end it all in 2004. are we still in the modern party era? guest: we may actually be entering a post-modern party time. the heiress change, from my perspective, when the strategies of the candidates change and the opportunity of the parties change. one of the things that is fascinating about the modern party time up to 2004 and now this time in 2008, you very much see that changing the rules of
the game is part of the nomination process. prior to the mcgovern/frazier, commission, that was not the norm. parties did not change their denominational is every single year. now they seem to do that. and also change the calendar, which is part of the frantic part of the process. but the two parties are very competitive when the south switched from being democratic to republican and the northeast switched from being republican to democrat. the airhn, you're on with lara brown. caller: i would like to get your thoughts on the only elected president that we have that was impeached. also, did you serve in government during the clinton administration? guest: yes, i did. i worked in the department of
education. i was in charge of corporate art reach. i was involved in the democratic side of politics in graduate school. it was how i paid for my graduate education. once i finished my ph.d. i slowly transitioned out of party politics and now i am really an analyst. host: next call for professor brown comes from georgia. james, a democrat. caller: i think this lady is doing a great job. i disagree about this thing about bill clinton and obama. bill clinton was tried to be in a speech to -- if impeached for something that is not impeachable. george bush did something that was very much impeachable, but he is not a bad guy. the difference i see is that
george bush got away with so much. host: what did he get away with? caller: he committed treason. he lied about the war. and he makes up an excuse of, well, this is the information that i've got. if you have done something, admit it. if he had admitted to it, maybe that would be different. the point is, he lied about the war. he went over there and want to control petroleum. and that is another story. host: lara brown? guest: you are bringing up one of the more interesting things in our history, and that is, of impeachment is a terribly political. it is not clear-cut. typically, it has to do with what is in the environment. you can look back at the impeachment process with andrew johnson and what you saw were that the radical republicans in congress for extremely upset with his -- with what they
perceived as him being soft on the south. host: didn't he kind of put himself therefore by not defending himself, or being arrogant toward congress? guest: absolutely. and certainly, at that creative time, congress expected much more deference than they do today. the congress constantly gets rolled by the president today. host: why has that changed? guest: 4 lot of reasons. as the government -- for a lot of reasons. as the government has expanded, the president has gained more power. the president is the chief executive and that means we go from having a few agencies to many agencies. the more agencies they have, the larger the budgets are and the the powerfu accrues to
executive branch. executive branch. the 1995 budget debate is a classic example of that. and it is also why of speaker policy toward impeachment off the table even before the 2006 election. she, i believe, was playing for the long term. she wanted to try to win the presidency in 2008 from a democratic party perspective and she felt that if they engaged in an impeachment proceeding against bush during the 2007-08 time frame, soph it would only -- it would only marred their chance for the presidency. host: is written recently that it was a bad political strategy to run against george borscht in 2010, correct? guest: very true.
elections are about the future and it is difficult to keep looking back. voters feel like, yes, and we punished george bush in 2008. we very clearly did that. we made sure his party did not get into office and reelected a bunch of democrats and we elected president barack obama. from their perspective, they have completed their task. now the question is, what do we do about where they are -- where we are? it is still not fixed. host: you never hear beingican speech about the party of republican and -- being the party of lincoln and reagan. guest: i actually wrote a paper or about how president clinton used presidential exemplars in his speeches.
if you look at how he name drops over time, he begins by almost citing thomas jefferson and franklin roosevelt. he and his presidency are almost always citing abraham lincoln and theodore roosevelt. he moves from symbolically talking about two democrats, who were considered the greatest, to the republicans that were considered the great. and he was at that time working with a republican congress. it was no surprise that he was trying to bridge that gap. and i think you can see when you hear the republicans speaking about lincoln and teddy roosevelt, they are trying to explain, we are a progressive party, even advanced our conservatism. -- even amidst our conservatism. host: last call from wisconsin. caller: i am a conservative
person. i do not belong to the democratic party or the republican party or the tea party. but i'm very angry about what is happening with the money in this country. so many people that have good paying jobs, the jobs have been laid off. people do not get the same amount of money. and we are going into debt so far over our head. i do not know how long is going to take for this country to recover. the rich do not pay taxes. the poor do not pay taxes. the middle class pays the taxes and we are getting hit every day. guest: i think you are expressing the sentiment that is out there among many, many people right now. let me say, i do think that the democrats made a very serious judge mccall -- a judgment call when it came to focusing on health care. i happen to believe that most
americans, when they looked at where this economy was heading, said to themselves, if i lose my job and then my house is foreclosed upon, it does not matter whether or not i can go to the doctor. and i think the priority list is very important and i think the democrats, because of their desire to pass health care because it has so long been on the agenda, pushed ahead of the voters concerned >> and you for being on "washington journal." >> tomorrow, kristie arslan talks about the impact on the self-employed. jendayi frazer talks about the
sudan and charles peters talks about his biography of chart -- of lyndon johnson. that is saturday morning at 7:00 p.m. on c-span. >> next, and the staff of the cook political report look at the 2010 elections. then, the california senate race and it's a face-off in a debate and then the candidates in the arizona governor's race and then the nevada governor's race debate. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution and the importance of historical studies. that is on book tv with your calls, e-mail's and tweets. that is on c-span2. president obama will make two stops next week to talk about the economy. he will kick off labor day week on monday with remarks at laborfest.
on wednesday, he will speak in cleveland and on friday, he will hold a press conference at the white house. check c-span.org 4 schedule details. -- 4 schedule details. >> now, charlie cook, and others discuss the house, senate and governor races. they were interviewed on "washington journal" on monday. this is just under an hour. nues. host: we are continuing our summer series on "washington journal" this week. if you have been turning in at this hour you have seen as two different subjects. this week we are calling to look at politics and what goes into campaigning. on tuesday we will get political ads and their impact on
electoral politics. and wednesday, the role of in attendance this year. on thursday, the science of polling, its accuracy and our fax elections. and on friday, a political fund- raising in light of the recent decision by the supreme court. but today, we will look at the 2010 senate and house races. with me ispublisher. jennifer duffy and david wasserman also looking at house races. thank you very much. guest: it is the first time we've done anything altogether on television before. host: give us the macro picture of what we're looking at.
i have heard that the demand -- the dems will keep the house and know they won't keep the house. guest: it is looking tougher and tougher. if you look at it from a macro, top-down perspective, it looks like it's going to go republican. the race by race count is not quite there. david will go into much more of the micro political, but from the national perspective, when you take in and turn out how independents are swinging and all these dynamics, it is looking tougher for democrats to all gone to the house. my hunch is that they are going to come up short. host: it was said on friday that they're going to cut out, -- he did not say the executive like that, but it looks like dems
might cut out here. guest: it is looking like certain people probably cannot be saved and these people can save themselves over here without any help. those're going to save who are right on the bubble, still salvageable, but need help. it is the process that the republicans went through at this point in 2006. host: how about the senate? guest: six months ago, three months ago, it was absurd to say that there was any chance the republicans could get a majority in the senate. now, i think it is tough for them, but not observed. you could count 11 seats that could possibly go republican that a few months earlier before barbara boxer's race became very close, was fine gold,
category -- and west fine gold. the numbers are getting bigger, but more likely than not they will come up a little short. host: jennifer duffy, do you want to add to that? guest: no, i think charlie is right. three months ago, you could not have given up the seats. but the races that are too close to call right down 10 to proportionately -- this proportionally fall to one party or -- they tend to disproportionately fall to one party or another. in 2006, one party won 89% of all of the seats we had in tossup. now we have three democratic seats that i think republicans will win, plus eight tossups. it is not a pretty picture for democrats right now.
they may be expressing their discontent with the candidates. this is not a wedge issue election in any way. when the economy is good, you see those kinds of what i call the little issues rise up. host: jennifer duffy? guest: bigger picture, i cannot disagree with charlie. this is definitely a big issue. on the race side that the caller asked about kayaleh -- on the races that the caller asked about, to me, these are absolutely the most important races. amar rubio and kendrick meek and a charlie crist -- what is fascinating about this is how dependent all of these candidates are on each other. mariko rubio needs to run a good solid race and consolidate
the democratic vote so that drove across canada take much of that. kendrick meek can consolidate -- so that charlie crist does not take much of that. the kendrick meek also needs to consolidate the republican vote. independence made break the vote here. -- independents may break the vote here. you have obviously the most popular incumbent in harry reid, with the senate majority leader, but he is running against someone who has a not a lot of experience on the campaign trail and is prone to engage in her mouth before her brain. but the thing about nevada,
there is another option on the ballot. it is called "none of the above." if you do not like your candidate, you can vote for no one. that might actually save leader reid. independents are not breaking strongly in the new direction. this will be closed until a election day. host: let's go to libby in nantucket on the independent line. do you have a specific race that you are watching? caller: we are here for the summer. the we reside in connecticut. are you doing all of this behind a desk in washington? and on to chris matthews become operative dean april that the democrats were going to lose, we are here -- and on to chris
matthews, predicting in april that the democrats want to lose, we are here. these people are absolutely out of their minds. host: have you ever voted for republican? caller: have i ever? certainly, i have. guest: how many states have you been in the last 12 months? caller: we have been in at least six. guest: i have been in about 35, 38 something like that. i am out there a lot, 150 nights, 200 nights per year. i am out there a lot and poring over data. we are not sitting behind a desk in washington, i assure you. host: can you talk a little bit about what goes into doing your job? because that is part of the series this week.
and what goes into politics, the industry of it? guest: jennifer and david are meeting with candidates all over the country. how many house candidates have you met so far? guest: close to 100. guest: jennifer, how many have you met? guest: 50, 60. host: why is that important for you to meet with the candidates? guest: any candidate could do their own polling income of with their own conclusions about the race, but in terms of accuracy in past election cycles, the ability to take the candidate polls, -- pulse, and see if they represent the values of their district. that gives you an idea of how they're going to progress and what that is going to be. host: do you know what it takes
to win? guest: a lot of candidates, and with a poor idea of how you run a campaign and what it takes to win. and one of the things i ask them to do is to tell me their life story. if you cannot tell me your life story, how will you tell it to a voter? and the hard questions, how will you answer to the voter? we do these questions about their background and let them talk freely and let them know that we do not play gotcha. it is a very honest exchange with these candidates. i call it kicking the tires. you would a non by a car without looking at it and as driving -- you would not buy a car without looking at it and test driving it. host: and candidates are willing to meet with you? not a problem to get set up with
these meetings? guest: no, the only candidates that do not generally come to see us or the self funders. -- are the self funders. these political elites, a lot of them get our stuff. this is a way for the candidates to communicate with their potential donors. the self funders, they do not have to come by and kilovar are our rear ends -- and kiss our rear ends. but you do not get frequent- flier statements with our meeting with a lot of people all over the country. unless somebody is a traveling salesperson, they're probably not getting around this country and seeing as many people as i am. host: let's go to dela on the democratic line. is there a specific race they you are watching? caller: jazz, pennsylvania.
i do not think these people have very much credence by comes to pennsylvania. their calls are off by about 32% in their calculation. forget about it to my id is over. we have increased democratic legislation -- registration by 300,000 people since the last election. take a look at registration and forget the polls. thank you very much. guest: show me the poll that we took, since we do not take polls. jennifer, did we? guest: no, we said it was going to be a very close night. it is funny. i have watched arlen specter for so long that he always beat the odds. my feeling was that he might be, this one out. that was not the case. -- he might eek this one out.
that was not the case. it remains a very close race. one of the things i would like to say to the caller about registration is that just because you register with a party, why does not mean you vote with the party. we see that all the time, especially in a state like pennsylvania that is so incredibly diverse. guest: it is one of the older states in the union in terms of average age. a lot of times you will have people registered 40 years ago with a party, but have not been voting reliably that way in a long time. host: susan on the republican line in winfield, go ahead. susan, are you with us? i think we lost her.
let's talk about missouri, because that is one state where the president wants to win this year. he lost it very nearly in his present -- a very narrowly in his presidential race. guest: mike skelton in missouri 's fourth district represents a swath. he has been there since 1976. he wants to turn his campaign into a referendum on his record helping the military in his district bring back dollars in the armed services. his republican opponent is very closely identified with the social conservative movement in the district. sarah palin has endorsed her campaign. it will be tough to see whether voters in the district who have
stood by ike skelton will stand by him once again. guest: i like to call masorah, one of the swing yes -- i like to call missouri one of the swingiest of the swing states. the outsider in this race comes from a long line of political officeholders. her father was governor, mother in the senate. her grandfather was in the house. democrats actually went on the air against her opponent this weekend with a very tough at.
-- with a very tough ad. onst: i'd like to jump in that one. if you were going to say what is the microcosm of challenges facing democrats in this election, it would be missouri. number one, the challenge of getting the african-american vote out of st. louis and kansas city. this vote was so mobilized in 2008 and they are not mobilize right now. getting the college students at columbia in university and elsewhere. they're having a huge time getting their base mobilized, and at the same time, the small town, rural voters and older voters, perhaps in the central part of the state, they have turned against democrats very
strongly. you can see everything you need to see right there in missouri. host: let's go to dallas, texas, fred, you are on the diyala -- on the air. caller: in the past i have voted for the democrats and republicans, both the st. tickets and mixed tickets -- a straight ticket and next tickets. my concern is not just the economic part of it or the other side issues, but the main concern that i have and that my family, co-workers and go more to have is the direction that the country is headed and where we see -- what our perceptions are of where the country is headed. if we look at the individual person and we do research on the individual person and see what he has done in the past. the party makes no difference
anymore. host: is this playing out in every single race, or is this a specific district or senate race? guest: i think borders fundamentally do not trust either party. they're open toward the possibility of voting for an independent, but rarely do see an independent candidate come along that is not sort of more of a fringe candidate. what you see is people swinging back and forth. in 2006, independent voters voted for a democratic congress by a 16 point margin. in 2008, they voted for senator obama by 1/8 point margin. so far this year, they have been swinging -- by an eight point margin. so far this year they have been swimming toward republicans. they do not think they like the change they got and they are
swinging over the other direction. great party voting is at the highest level in the last few alexian's then in modern -- last few u.s. actions than in modern history. host: maria, democratic line, you are on the air. caller: i just want to say that i do believe all the people here, you have no dissenting voices here. everybody is on the same page, and i totally disagree. i think barbara boxer will survive. but when it comes to harry reid, you do not want to say that he is ahead, but he is. i do not think that you pull the young people and the black people. and i do believe that because republicans are voting on things like unemployment, things the
newspaper that you are not pulling people on, i do not think they will pick up as many seats as you think they will. again, hispanics, muslims, blacks and gays -- i also think that is going to be a factor. guest: the thing is, and on not blaming one side or the other for anything, but when president obama was sworn into office, the unemployment rate among african americans was 12.6. and right now it is 15.6. among hispanics it was 9.7. now is 15.1. for recent college graduates, the job market is the worst it has been in 35 years. these are the people that pushed democrats up to these incredibly high levels. right now, they are not happy people. they are not enthusiastic.
that is one reason why the gallup poll, for example -- a new numbers will be coming out today. a 46% of the republicans are enthusiastic about voting this year compared to just 23% of democrats. and there is a new poll in the "wall street journal" that shows a huge gap for republicans. our job is just to call them as we see them. if democrats do not like what we are saying, guess what, they look badonis that things for democrats just as we said they did for republicans in 2006 and to assassinate. host: you must here -- for just
as we said they did for republicans in 2006 and 2008. host: you must hear a lot from these candidates. next yes, go ahead. caller: when you talk to people, do you ever ask them and why are you a democrat? why are you republican? i have started doing that. i spoke to an educator and his answer was, my parents were. ridiculous. another person said -- oh, a retired schoolteacher. this is supposed to be an intelligent person. she said, i have to think about it. host: the u.s. than the question?
-- do you ask them that question? guest: you have heard the chairman of the beach for policy asking -- of the dccc asking. that is such a huge advantage for them when they can tie the democratic incumbents to washington. in delaware, democrats have a shot of were -- of picking up a republican seat that is leaning their way right now. democrats have lieutenant governors -- the former lieutenant governor of delaware john carney in this race. he could pick up mike castle's seat and there could be a split
in the delegation there. host: next yes, go ahead. caller: i am a cpa. republicans say they do not believe in government, so why would you hire someone who says they do not believe in government to run the government? the other thing is, some people have radios in the background when they are working. i usually have c-span. i would watch the hearings because they have discussion about tax laws and the future of the tax laws. without fail, every bill that republicans put up hurt the
middle class taxpayers. and worked to the advantage of the really wealthy. that is what turned me off on the republican party. guest: one of the questions that pollsters like to ask is, do you think government should do more to solve our nation's problems, or do you think government is doing too many things that are better left to businesses and individuals? we have never been lopsided one way or another, but over time, we see it change a little bit. but we started seeing a switch about a year ago. -- it is which among independents about a year ago. host: and that was an independent voter. guest: yes, we have seen a switch that the government should do less revenue than do more.
the credit crisis into timber 2008, we have seen to the extent -- in a september 2008, we have seen that to the extent that they can, people have been saving more and spending less. they have been investing more conservatively. i think the numbers came out recently that for 30 months in a row people have been investing in bond funds than mutual funds. -- rather than mutual funds. we are seeing a cocooning down among peoples in the stock market drop 800 points in one day. and we have seen that with the voters as well. voters are less receptive now to the idea of an expansive government than they were two or three years ago. and that with a wind at the back of republican candidates in a wind in the face of the democratic candidates.
it clearly seems to be happening right now. host: danny on the line in atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: president obama has said that republicans are calling on and asia -- counting on an major from the nation. i just do not see how the republicans as a wall can take back the senate -- as a whole can take back the senate. alan grayson will win. in my opinion, the floor dade is the bellwether.
host: let's get your opinion on this. guest: alan grayson, he is a puller. the difference here is that michele bachmann represents the most republican district in minnesota. alan grayson represents a district that is by no means democratic. when you have on race and running against a candidate who may be a conservative republican, but a boring conservative republican like dan webster and just won the primary on the republican side last week -- who just won the republican primary last week, i think a large share of the vote goes to independencts. i think any incumbent should be
worried. 40% of voters are standing with alan grayson renown. i think this race is bound to become much closer. host: jennifer duffy, the caller was from georgia. the georgia governor's race is number two on your list here. guest: it represents something of a phenomenon that we see. there are five former governors who are running for their jobs back. one is in georgia, bob barnes. he has been out of office for eight years, but would like his job back. he is being challenged by a former republican congressman nathan deal. you have seen barnes troubling stayed pretty much apologizing for his first term and saying he would like another chance.
deal is regrouping after a tough primary runoff. he does have some ethics problems the democrats will remind voters of on a daily basis. i think this is going to be a close race. host: we have about 15 minutes left with the coca of political reporting. -- the cook political report gang. next call from indiana. caller: if you compare this race with 1994 with newt gingrich coming in, is it similar to that? guest: you have that sense that all politics is local and then you have these brave elections. in 1994 you had a pub -- republican wave and in 2006 a
democratic wave. it is not exactly the same dynamics that existed in 1994, but close enough. democrats had a lot of open seats in that election, lot more retirements that left them vulnerable in a lot of ways. but on the of iran, the economy in 1994 was -- but on the other hand, the economy in 1994 was stronger. the elements are not identical, but for all intents and purposes, this is comparable. it tends to be a referendum on the party in power. and it is by neera. people are not happy with the republican party. binary.it is by ner
i tell my republican friends that voters do not like you and have not forgiven you, but the good news is that this election is not about you. this is about the democrats. but in this kind of environment, as jennifer suggested, any incumbent needs to be worried. even under normal circumstances, incumbents -- well known and well defined incumbents do not get a lot of decided voters. and once you are over 50, no matter and what your margin over your opponent, things get tougher. we are seeing polls, david is seen polls come in and -- david is seeing polls come in where a democrat is running against a republican that is basically unknown and running even.
david, was the statistic you had about the number of incumbents that were behind at this point? guest: there were 32 democratic incumbents that have trailed rs.ir republican challenge at this point before labor day, there were only 11 democratic incumbents against republican challengers. host: next will call, houston, texas, henry, independent line. caller: i want to ask two quick questions. how is this going to affect life in texas? and now that the floodgates have been opened for corporations, how will this affect republicans?
guest: governor perry is running for what is a second full term for him. i actually like this race. i think is a very interesting race. one, because democrats are very competitive in a cycle like this in texas. perry has left no stone unturned. they have the idiom hard on the integrity, education, the budget -- they have hit him hard on thintegrity, education, the budget. the bad news is that governor perry refuses to bait bill white because he has not released his tax returns. that is one exchange i'm looking forward to. guest: on the citizens united case, i think this will have a lot less impact than people seem to think.
allowing groups like that to use their on treasury dollars as opposed to political action money, but treasury dollars on behalf of candidates -- my hunch is that with a couple of exceptions, you will not see is changed much in this country. 20, 30 years ago you would see up.any's lineulining but they have cut costs and done everything they can to boost productivity, and they did not go through all the pain -- and they are hoarding money because they are opera -- apprehensive about where the economy is going. the thing is with unions, they are not really excited right now. they will do a lot, but they will not go 100% out either, i think.
they're not really happy with what the democratic press has done either. many of these companies feel that their survival is at stake and they will jump in whole or did they. but the average company, i do not think there or to stand up in front of a shareholders' meeting and say your profits are lower because we spend your money, your shareholders dollars deposito give to candidates. i do not think you will see that. to them, they see it as a survival issue. when people see it as survival, they behave differently. they may like red jerseys better than blue jerseys, but they did not draw of this money at candidates.
host: jennifer, tell us about the candidates in california. guest: you have about -- you have meg whitman and you also have a former governor, jerry brown. this is a very close race, which i think surprises democrats. they find whitman to be athe ote senate race, something i did not think would end up at the top of
a column. barbara boxer is running and her opponent is carly fiorina, a former ceo of hewlett-packard. not spending quite the money that boxer is, but she's very feisty and aggressive than giving boxer a tough race. host: susan, with that, go ahead. caller: i'm calling from california, and my observation is that the american public that you speak of, moton -- mostly , isblican represented theire proposing that we are going to have and asia. we are not. -- we're going to have amnesia.
we are not. california's economy is in trouble. we have a republican governor who put it in that problem area. ms. whitman is running on a republican ticket. she is not going to win. there is no one there representing the democratic vote at all. host: we will leave it there. weigh in on how much attention barbara boxer is getting from the white house, fund raising in campaigning, and will that continue? guest: it will continue. the president has done these events for randy vice-president will -- for her and the vice- president will be out there.
the party needs to do whatever they can to help her. the problem is, we call it the great scene called for money. -- the sinkhole for money. host: here is james, republican from california. caller: i think a lot of people are confused, it seems. we do not have a democracy. there are witnesses to a democracy that we are not ready for yet. host: what are you driving at? caller: we do not have a healthy enough electorate to really be able to make these judgments. and lately, we do not even know what right and wrong is. host: what kind of judgment are
you talking about? caller: and change it into what works and does not work. one thing that does not work is a state of territorial organization. [unintelligible] otherwise, i do not have freedom of speech. we're working from iran president -- premise as to -- we are working from a wrong premise as to what a state is. host: we will leave it there. next call, go ahead. caller: the house race in my district, which is the first term incumbent, martin heinrich, john perella, the republican, and the albuquerque journal this morning said that heinrich's behind by six points. i heard you say something about
if an incumbent is under 50, [unintelligible] verses bharal, who is 41. how much is health care affecting the decisions that they are making? guest: this is a fascinating house race. there are two competitive house races out of the street -- the three seats in mexico. democrats are more likely to hold on to robert d. because it is a more democratic district than in southern -- hold on to the albuquerque district because it is a more democratic district and southern mexico. republicans need to make inroads in the hispanic vote if they are going to win other districts.
i expect hispanic voters to make of the least 30%, 35% of the electorate this go round. the polling here has been mixed. we have seen heinrich thursday very positive. there was a poll -- we have seen heinrich stayed very positive. we do not really know how this race is going to be governed. democrats are probably on their way to losing of least 40 seats. guest: i think you could broaden it back up and say, democrats need a few things to happen. number one, they need unemployment to come down and come down a lot, and it just
does not happen. the second thing they need is a public perception of the health care reform to have fundamentally changed. and it has shown very little changed in that. and the third thing is, democrats need to control that. we have seen north korean ships and south korean ships, the deep water rise in mess, the crisis in europe. it has kept them from being able to make up all of the time that was devoted exclusively to health care and meanwhile, the economy is still in lousy shape. we are facing a tough election.
the house is in grave danger and we have republicans attacking as back in 2006 when we are talking about the likelihood of democratic gains. caller: -- host: st. louis, missouri, go ahead. caller: listen, democrats -- all i've heard is the democrats are going to lose this year. they are going to have a hard time. if we're going to get anything done in this country, democrats, listen up. all we have to do is get 63 seats in the senate. forget the 60. we have people that are just not going to vote with the
democratic party anyway. but the of thing is, nevada, listen, harry reid has done a great job for this country. he has been good for america. do not let him lose that. i smiled when he said that -- guest: i smiled when he said that because you had republicans win a seat that is something as a rhode islander i did not think i would see in my lifetime. when you have a party without much power, they can actually push back a little bit.
>> this is obviously one of the biggest issues that arizona and america is facing. the union organizers that are weakening arizona are supporting you because of what you stand for. >> you have made false statements about arizona being a dangerous place. you are demeaning the men and women of law enforcement by saying we are dangerous to people. >> the federal government put up
a sign saying "danger. >> people are not in fear in their houses. >> that is not true. had you been down to the border? >> i know every inch of the border. >> why don't you go? you do not want to secure the border. >> what did you say? i do not want to secure the border? i have been fighting the cartels and try to do everything we can do estate officials to stop organized criminal threat in arizona. >> it is funny because all of this bickering is a distraction from our economy at the discretion that is sitting every home and family in america. requiren't sb1070
someone to prove their eligibility and the rest of us alone? actually, can we get off of 1070? >> not quite yet. we are going to hang onto it for a little while. >> i want to get rid of that. >> we will be unable to get rid immigration reform on the docket. that is a fundamental way that we can get everybody together, clear the decks, and make sure that we are all legal in this country. that is our objective in what we have to accomplish. the economy is the overwhelming problem. we are ignoring yet at our peril. we are going to lose as a state. >> your thoughts? >> boughn 1070?
>> yes. >> 70% of the bill did clear federal law. the last two pages did not. that is why i have a problem with the bill. people should be legal in the country, not illegal. regarding the last parts of the bill -- i think it was section 13 -- if you were harboring anybody knowingly or unknowingly, i could be in trouble with the law. the police could show up and take us all off. the problem with the civil rights regarding the last two parts of the bill. >> i want to get to what you mentioned, which was federal and action. that is what many people see as the reason behind 1070.
why should the states not do with the federal government has not done? >> the state has to do everything it can within the law. we have been tried to stop the cartels and seize their assets. that is the answer to solving this problem. along with solving decades of federal action in the area of immigration. we are paying a huge price right now. for almost 30 years the federal government has not paid attention. they have not changed the work visas. that has created the problem that we have today. they need to fix it because congress is a dead in the water. the one not introduce a bill. the one not start this process and try to bring some justice to our country. >> if they are dead in the
water, if they will not start the process, why should a state like arizona not start the process? >> we have a significant employer sanctions law. it is a big reason why people crossed the border. let's fix that. we can do that within the state. there is a exemption within the federal law to go after business licenses. that is a very good start. in the meantime, a federal court is still considering 1070. we need to focus on what ails arizona. that is our broken economy. we have lost 128,000 jobs. this is the number one priority for the next governor. >> governor, you have said that the action by the judge that blocked the major parts of the bill has caused arizona irreparable harm.
has it in how? >> i do believe that. we are a legislature. we have the right to enact laws. it mirrors the federal law. if the feds will not do their law, we would do their job for them. we will help them. bottom line is we cannot continue to reap all of the damage on and on and on. we need our borders secured. 1070 was in effect, all of this would be solved. it would make the attorney- general's job a lot easier. >> my opposition has always been a singular. it is national identification. i do not want the free citizens of arizona to be in the national data bases. -- databases. we are up rooting people and
giving them a disincentive -- giving them a disincentive to be here legally -- we have the bigger issue, which is going to be securing our borders and to we are going to let in. the feds have been very lax. they have not done anything. let's fix our state. there are people dying on our borders. there are people who are suffering with no security in their homes because we have not done anything and at the current governor has been saying that we are waiting for barack obama to do something. that has been the excuse for our inaction. i think we have to step on this, disregard the fed's, and do not let them impose on us any longer. >> we cannot ignore what he wanted to talk about earlier that is the job in the economy. governor, how do you grow jobs in arizona? >> we have a wonderful story.
we have already brought thousands of jobs into arizona and millions of dollars in capital. as my first act of governor i put a moratorium on rules and regulations. businesses that are looking to arizona would know exactly what they were dealing with and to help those businesses that are already here. i helped to establish so that people can go out and bring us into the 21st century. i believe it is important that everybody understand that i have put money into a job training time. i think that we have to very seriously look at the tax structure and do some tax reform.
corporate income tax and corporate property tax to make it more comparable. >> i think the idea of a congress authority is a good one. it took 18 months for her to even announce it. they had their first meeting of the 24th of september. that is not the way you respond to an emergency. your son to an emergency with all hands on deck. you reform our tax code to make it more competitive so that businesses are more attracted to arizona. he did everything in your power to make it imperative that jobs come first. that is not what she has done. he stopped the untruths that defame our state. arizona is not a violent place. we have had a 30 year reduction in violence in our state. law enforcement has done a great job. >> jobs in arizona. what are you going to do? >> increase the involvement in
national bonds to help create jobs. we need to make sure we can create jobs here. we need to create manufacturing jobs. we need to get back to the basics in terms of our structure and providing manufacturing -- not just buying from somebody else. we need to utilize our resources as a state. more importantly, giving some direction and leadership to the market and to the credit markets that we have a direction. we are going forward. >> i could not disagree more. i think government is what screws everything up. 9% of the jobs created historic we have come from the private sector. we have so many regulations it is a stranglehold. i propose emanating many of those regulations so that people can grow without looking over their shoulders to see if the government permit die is around
the corner. i oppose the bill went -- i propose the elimination of the personal income tax. we cannot expect the government to steal and not expect the public to do the same thing. it is unconstitutional. the revenue should come from transactions involving corporate structures. on a flat basis without exceptions going to a corporate structure -- that would give a very stable business environment. that is exactly what they told us. they want political stability. >> governor, there is a line of thought out there that the income tax rate in arizona has steadily gone down. there is a line of thinking that says, "increase the income tax but cut the business tax in order to stimulate the economy and get some jobs going." what are your thoughts? >> i called for tax reform what
i first became governor. it is something we need to look at. we need -- we need to make it equitable and fair for everyone. when i became governor, i was facing a huge deficit -- a big black hole. as we move through this legislative sessions try to get tax reform done, it was very difficult. we had to cut two $0.20 million out of the budget in order to get that budget completed. i am looking forward to this upcoming legislative session. it is one the most important things on our list. it can make us competitive. >> when you have an emergency, you do not wait two years to get started. we had an urgent need to bring jobs to arizona. he did not wait until the next legislative session. ashley, that will be the third. -- actually, that will be the third. it needs to be done right now.
arizona is hurting badly. 128,000 jobs have left the state while jan brewer has been governor. we are number one in the nation for job loss. that is an emergency. that does not allow you to wait and deliberate. you have to put all folks in action. i put out an emergency action plan that will bring 300,000 jobs to the state right away. we need to start that kind of emergency action. >> i am glad you mentioned that. we are in class's -- in crisis. it is because of the prior administration and you digging us into a whole. spending more, building a bigger government -- >> that helped to keep us out of trouble. >> we have done a good job at a turning it around. we have brought thousands of
jobs into arizona. we have brought millions of dollars to arizona on top of assets. we will continue to do that. it is a very difficult time. >> the trouble is you have lost 100,000 jobs. people do not think about coming to arizona to start their career. they do not think there's any opportunity here. arizona will never it recover -- arizona will never recover economically while our schools are dead last. i do not know how you can tolerate the fact that arizona schools are not performing. they are failing. support for schools in arizona is last in the nation. that is an abomination. >> maybe you could talk to your big union friends about stopping the boycotts and driving people away from arizona and taking jobs away. >> what are we going to do to get our state at the cellar? >> eaddy not believe the boycotts are affecting our economy?
>> will try to figure that one out. will try to give you two back on the same page. how about the idea that the tax structure needs to be changed? maybe the tax rate needs to increase in arizona? >> nothing should be taken off the table. jan started to say how we got into this mess. in 2004, 2005, in 2006 we had excess money. what did we do with it? we did not it into a rainy day fund. where did it go? we may not be in such dire straits if we had put that money away and had it at this time. i would not take anything off the table right now. >> these may well be the most critical times. it will not be the most skilled
"we will ever face, probably. piquancy the political division between the republicans and democrats is obvious. like janet napolitano, all we end up is it -- all we end up with is a bigger box. the people of arizona should know that i represent the governor that will represent you, not preserving the administration. jan was excited about proposition 100. it would raise $3 million. that was thrust on people during a depression to cover up. we have to pare government down and make it smaller. we have $70 million hidden in property taxes while facing a $750 million -- that means more taxes on top of obama care.
>> proposition 100 was overwhelmingly supported by the voters in arizona. i led the campaign. i believe that they understood the problems in the issues. i believe that they listened to jan brewer, listen to me, trust in me because i might long record in public service. it was the right thing to do. doing the right thing always beats doing the hard thing. >> the reality is, the taxes it did not help. these guys are trying to preserve the state administration. the difference between us is going to be obvious. they want to save the boat. >> proposition 100 was supported by parents, teachers, and people across arizona because they thought it was a different situation.
$1.10 billion came out of k-12 education because of her cats. and more cuts would be devastating to public education in arizona. for jan brewer to take credit for it somehow saving education with proposition 100 is like taking credit for saving someone from the water when you are the one that puts them in. you cannot save the state from drowning when you are the one that puts it over the site. >> that is interesting and somewhat fascinating. i got involved in politics because of education. i understand how important it is to our state and to our country. i did lead the campaign because if i had not done that, education would have been decimated. it was tough times. we did not have the funds because of the prior administration. they were spending money left
and right. rainy dayending the fund. it was not raining. i arrived and had to solve it all. it has been a tough road to hoe. >> school districts were already drawing up the list of teachers there were going to fire. my sixth grader came home with a note saying that if proposition 100 did not pass, 130 teachers were going to be fired. that is blackmail. that is putting people against the wall and saying, "you have to do this or your school is toast." it is a failure at the very beginning of this governor's term. >> let's go back to what we have heard a couple of times. the previous administration overspent by leaps and bounds. the mismanage the budget. how do you respond to that?
>> it is shifting the blame. at this moment, everybody knew that when we went into the election in 2008 errors on had a $3 million deficit. we were in a national recession. everybody got caught in that recession. i am not here to make excuses for janet napolitano. she is gone. jan brewer has the job. it does not do any good for her to shift the blame back. she needs to take responsibility for what she has done. she has failed to match that -- she has failed to manage -- she has failed to balance the budget. what there is an urgent need to bring jobs back to arizona. we have got to do that. >> that is a whole lot to respond to. let me just say that the jumped
on a few days before and tested the wind. bottom line is, jan brewer had to move in and correct a huge mess. in 2006 we knew that because of big spending and new programs and smoke and mirrors that arizona was headed into bankruptcy. on top of that came the recession. there but for the grace of god i arrived. i rolled up my sleeves, put my pencil to paper, and did the job. >> get in on this. >> it was not overwhelming by any stretch of the imagination. only 30% of the people showed up for the proposition 100 best. 67% of them boded for it. it was only about 25% of the population. make sure the numbers are correct.
the purpose of government education is to graduate a competent young man or young woman that is capable of making their own way without becoming a burden to anyone. these guys have talked about saving the administration. that is that but i was talking about. i am talking about progress of the individual student. nothing happened when proposition 100 went through. curie are in the same place with more taxes. -- here we are in the same place with more taxes. >> arizona is always a bright blue. there are very few surveys when we are not scraping bottom. what is going on? >> i think part of its is the formula the federal government uses in defining dollars to give it to the states and how to measure our successes or failures. the ell program for example.
there are about 30% or 14% of k-12 that are in english language learning. that means the parents do not read or write english. therefore, we are responsible to get them at a certain level. it is my understanding that we had an arrangement with the federal government that we would have made for your window to bring that up. to get that to the english side. we shot that down. we got a lot of dollars from the federal government. unfortunately, the way they measure us -- it causes a problem because of the structure they do but the ones that are non-english. secondly, we do need to reform where we put the dollars that we have. we should put it back to the
teachers at first. >> the idea that arizona never seems to get over the top in terms of education studies and education research. what is going on? >> arizona is failing our children. we have a situation where we are dead last in resources per child. that is an abomination. we need to change that. we are about a 40th at the eighth grade level. we are behind in production of kids in math. we are concerned about making sure people are ready to compete and are increasingly competitive. only 20% of high-school graduates in arizona are ready to go to college. that is terrible. we have one of the highest dropout rates in the nation. we have to work very hard on making our public education system much better. i had a goal to work from the
bottom tend to the top 10 in 10 years. that is the focus we need. the commitment from the governor to public education is what one gets out of this mess. >> ideas regarding education -- >> that is very important, also. it is part of this education reform. the bottom line is that we need to move in the direction of putting our framework together. we brought everybody to the table. we did not do so well the first round. in the second round, arizona came up 19th out of 32. we now have that footprint. we will continue to move with new ideas any reforms. it is important that parents know how well their schools or performing. it is important that they
understand that it is easy to understand and get away from this kind of designations. social promotion is something that one of lumber happened in arizona. we need to reward, i believe, those teachers that inspire. i believe we have. we will start retiring superintendents to have their salaries based 20% on job performance. those are the kinds of things that we need to do. we will continue moving in that direction. >> that is where our reward should go. we are not going to reform education by taking $1.10 billion after of k-12 education. all the studies -- when jan brewer got rid of that, she set our schools back significantly.
>> i hate to bring this up because i am changing the subject again, you keep talking about all the cutting and what we need to do and when we need to get it done. where is your plan? where are you going to get this money? >> we are going to grow our economy. >> that is no plan. you have no plan. >> you are the governor. you need to have a balanced budget. yet not done that yet. >> you're the attorney general. you have to have a balanced budget. -- constitution. of all people, you should know that. >> at the end of 2009, your budget was out of balance. when you got -- when it finally got a budget in 2010, it was $150 million out of balance. >> we balance the budget. you're not going to get away with that. >> you have not balance the budget since you have been
governor. >> we have balanced the budget. >> the second year you sign the budget -- >> why did you not do something about it at that was the case? we balanced the budget. after the budget was balanced, we had the obama administration blow a hole in it because they did more spending. get your facts straight. tell me where you get the money to make up the difference. what is your plan? >> we need to have a balanced budget. >> hold on. terry, please stop. >> we have gotten way of subject. we were talking education and now we're talking about whether she balanced it or not. i would say absolutely not. you cannot say you balance the budget by adding another $70 million. all you have done is preserve
the state. we have got to stop focusing on the welfare school system and start looking at the education of the populace, which is something i hold very dear. i think we paid less than $6,000 per year and yet the state -- that. it is not the kids. it is the institution that we have got to reform. we have to care about it in a bigger sense and encourage education at all levels be at home schooling or sitting by the fireside. >> larry, does sitting by the fireside sound good to you? >> is certainly could help us. i agree. to health care. terry, you did not want arizona to join the health care reform
lawsuit. it looks like it is going to hit arizona hard. first of all, it still seems to be a moving target, but those who want to join the suit are looking at $11 million. why did you not join that suit? >> i read the suit and felt that it did not stack up as a legal proposition. we would have been the 20 state. i think there is not a constitutional problem. we should not waste arizona resources to just continue the fight in congress into the courts. bottom-line is there are many things about health care reform which benefit arizona. there had been years where we were ahead. those are the facts. it does some things that i applaud. it allows kids to stay on their
family insurance policies until they are 26. you cannot throw somebody off to has a pre-existing condition. seniors can get dental care which they desperately need. these are things that helped to make health-care affordable to us. it is not perfect, but it is moving in the right direction. arizona is two $0.30 billion better off than it would be without it. -- $2.3 billion better off than it would be without it. >> i think it is unconstitutional. we simply cannot afford it. it is inherently wrong. it is wrong for the federal government to tell the people of arizona that you have got to buy something and, if you do not, we are going to penalize you. we cannot even afford the health care in our state on the
medicare program. we have said the very high standard. to continue to have the obama administration continually want to upped the ante and increase the benefits to people that cannot afford it is inherently wrong in the bill is inherently unconstitutional. we will win. >> this cost you're talking about had nothing to do with health care reform. the proposition passed in arizona mandated on you. it is not something you did out of your generosity. kids care is something that i cannot understand how you could eliminate a program that takes kids without medical insurance
and not them all the roles said they end up in the emergency rooms. it is incredibly economically destructive. >> terry, how would you pay for it? give me your plan? >> it was given to you by the voters of arizona. you cannot buy your action simply say, "i am sorry." you have got to do the same thing with proposition 204. it is not obama care. it is not health care reform that is causing this problem. we have to meet the standards that arizona voters expect. >> how is this big, wonderful government that you want -- how are you going to afford it? terry, eaddy to tell us that. you need to give us a plan. >> i have a plan.
you have failed to balance the budget. >> no, you have not given us a plan. you talk about spending and all of the cutting. you are cut out of the same cloth as the obama administration. bigger government and more spending. >> i solve the obama campaign from health care reform to health insurance for everybody. doctors have said that if we could get government out of our health care they could lower the prices by 60% or 70%. we would not need insurance. we could afford it out of our pocket. if we should provide anything as the state administration, it should be the county hospital system invigorated -- reinvigorated. we are not going to lead people
bleeding on the sidewalk. >> obama health care reform is absurd -- agreed? >> i think it is a state's rights issue. it is not for the federal government to decide. it is up to us to decide how we live and how we will govern ourselves. i believe we lived in the greatest and wealthiest country in the world and we should be able to find a way to develop affordable health care. maybe not by government, but certainly in the private sector. the government should put the pressure on the private sector to come up with a better solution for affordable health care. >> i want to shift to a terrible incident in arizona -- the escape of prisoners. this was from a private prison. you have expressed confidence in
private prisons. are you still confident that private prisons are good for arizona? >> private prisons have been in arizona for approximately 20 years. they are utilized not only by us, the state, but by the federal government. that was a terrible incident that took place in regards to those people escaping. it ended in a horrible tragedy. i moved forward with a top to bottom investigation of what pat -- of what took place there. it was determined that it was human error. we move forward to get those people replaced. just let me say, i have been on
it. i immediately got hold of the department of corrections and commended them for the job they have done. i would like to commend all law- enforcement given the tragedy that took place. the corrections department, public safety, the marshals office -- the people that were able to get welch and mccluskey arrested without incident. >> is there a place for private prisons in arizona? >> the issue is safety for the people of arizona. the astonishing thing to all of this -- all of us is that 400 violent criminals or moved into a facility designed for drawing drivers. there was no increase in security. there was no increase in training.
117 of those violent offenders were murderers. they're convicted of first or second-degree murder. there's no information given to the sheriff or the police chief. the department of corrections did an audit. they gave minor suggestions as to how it could be improved. when they came in after the escape, they found out it was a melt-down situation. they had 89 false alarms. the people did not have proper training. there were brand new on the job. the guards were gone from their shift for 20 minutes. these people strolled out of
arizona. this was a terrible abdication of the responsibility of the state of arizona to take care of and protect the public welfare. >> it was a terrible situation. we do not deny that. unfortunately it was human error and it has been resolved. the people responsible hadn't ousted. -- the people responsible have been ousted. we had eight review in 2005. the governor signed off on the classifications to allow this classified prisoners to go into the prison. >> that is not true. >> that was without any public hearing our oversight. >> it was on your watch that pilot criminals were moved to a facility that was utilized or
drop drivers. 400 violent offenders were moved to that facility. bottom line is, your administration said everything was fine. obviously everything was not fine. the escape was a month ago yesterday. you have still not put together what you have to do. >> the classification was complete in 2005. >> please. >> you signed off on it. >> that has nothing to do with it. it was the transfer of violent criminals to a facility that was classified -- >> we need to stop right there. i want you to respond to this, please. >> before i would point fingers, let's wait for the review. let's see what comes out.
gov. brewer has not asked for an impartial -- >> please. we have about 30 seconds. >> i was for private prisons. i have had some second thoughts because of this. there is a place in some circumstances, maybe for the job drivers or the minimalist. i am definitely having some reservations. the state should be in control of the presence. >> thank you. we are legitimately out of time. thank you all for a lively discussion. each candidate will give a one minute closing statement. we start with jan brewer. >> i think that the choice tonight is very clear. i have brought thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in capital investment to the state of arizona. terry has done nothing. i have cut the budget and
spending. terry has no plan. i have presorted proposition 100 and led the campaign to public safety. i have supported senate bill 1070, signed it, and called out loudly to get our borders secured. i have supported proposition 200 which limits benefits to illegal immigrants. i have worked hard and executed eight voter i.d. at depots -- at the polls. i have fought back against obama health care and will continue to do that. tonight, i ask you to make a clear choice. i ask for your boat. together we can get the job done. >> larry, you are next. >> like many of you watching the
news, i decided to enter the race and do something. i saw people losing their homes and their jobs. i thought i could enter into the process and make a difference. my background is 35 years in the private sector technology and financial services fields. this would benefit arizona with working in the private sector. we had the copper, cattle, climate, sisters, and cotton. i would like to add the sixth "c." >> terry goddard. >> i think the solution is simple. we have failing schools.
we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. we have a broken budget. we have to pull together and fight to recover those jobs, that's our schools, and stop the partisan bickering that afflicts our state. jan brewer said at the beginning that she has changed everything. that is all too true. we have gone from first to worse in job production. she has failed to balance the state budget. this is not the arizona that we want. my emergency job plan will bring jobs to the state. that is the first job i will be engaged in as for governor. it takes more than letters and lawsuits to solve the border problem. i have been fighting the cartels. i have had major success. we have seized over $20 million other assets. as is the kind of success we need in our next governor. >> that is one minute. thank you.
now the final 1 minute closing statement. >> i hope that people will come visit us at our website to get the whole story. it is obvious that we are politically divided. we need someone, a libertarian, they can take ideas from both sides of the aisle without fearing repercussions or reprisals. i offered the opportunity for the people of arizona to have a constitutional government, one that will stand up for your individual rights above all things. you are what we are here to serve. we have one purpose for government here in arizona and that is to protect the rights and properties of the individuals. i will do that. we have not seen it done. i will give you a clear choice and a clear path towards the future where arizona can win this next election. that is what we want. let arizona when this election. thank you very much. >> the key candidates.
thank you for watching this debate. this debate and all of our election coverage is available online by visiting our web site. that is set for now. they do so much for joining us. you have a great evening. >> following the debate, gov. brewer told a newspaper that she would not participate in any more advanced with democrat teddy -- terry goddard. she had to debate him to qualify for campaign funds. according to the article, the
governor conceded that her performance in the debate and her refusal to answer questions from reporters afterwards were not well handled. >> next, the nevada gov.'s debate. then, president obama talks about this month's rise in unemployment. then, your calls and comments on "washington journal." one "news makers," an admiral talks about the coast guard's mission including the response to the bp oil spill and hurricane season. that is sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution, and the importance of historical study. that is sunday on booktv.
life for three hours on at noon eastern on c-span2. >> there is nothing about finance that is like rocket science. you think about ponzi schemes. the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a but that they are not smart enough to understand how that but will be invested. >> meredith whitney predicted losses for secret. she's our guest sunday night. >> the candidates wanting to be nevada's next governor of debate for the first time. the andre agassi preparatory academy posted the event last sunday. it posted -- it focused on the candidates education proposals.
andre agassi foundation. the candidates have a release plans for improving education in nevada. we will hear from both candidates on this critical issue. >> the venue for this debate is the andre agassi college preparatory academy. here is the man behind it all, a man who cares about education. andre agassi. [applause] >> thank you. good evening and welcome to the andre agassi college preparatory academy. i would like to thank both of our candidates for accepting our invitation to come here tonight and share their thoughts on one of the most volatile issues we face today in our state -- education. we first built the school because we believed that nothing has the power to change a child's life like a quality education. without an education, a child cannot hope, cannot dream.
without a quality educational system, our state cannot compete. no matter what he does, the next governor of nevada will be remembered for the effect he has had on education. but the rest of america, the data is struggling economically. the huge portion of our state budget, roughly half, goes to education. the next governor will be called to make some excruciating decisions. they will be asked time and time again how much are we spending on education? should we spend more? are we spending enough? are we spending it wisely? by the time we leave here tonight, i expect we will all have a clear idea as to how each of these men will answer those questions. one of the things that makes me proud this is our code of respect which our children recite every morning before class. i ask our audience and our candidates tonight to show the
kind of respect we demand of our kids so the dialogue can be meaningful and constructive. thank you again for joining us. best of luck to both candidates. [applause] >> thank you, andrea. well said. >> we want to review the roles for the debate. >> each candidate will get two minutes for an opening statement in two minutes at the end for summary. >> we will ask questions. the questions will be asked alternately of each candidate. but one of two minutes to answer. their opponent will have one minute to respond. the first candidate will have a 1 minute rebuttal if they so choose. >> we will ask follow-up questions for each candidate and they will each have one minute
to respond to that. our time limits will be strictly enforced by our timekeeper. >> in the interest of allowing the candidates as much time as possible to be heard, we asked the audience to hold all applause until the end of the debate. please, no outbursts and turn off your cell phones. >> by coin toss, mr. reed will go first with his opening statement. >> it is great to be here tonight to talk about one of my favorite subjects, education. everyone watching this debate is angry or anxious. you have a right to be. your schools are failing our children. your governor has let this economy crashing your feet. you know that we need a strong leader to get us through this mess. bryan sandoval is a nice man, but he is a weak leader. his budget proposal would cut our schools.
his plan would lead to the termination of teachers, explosion of class size, and it would take taxpayer dollars to subsidize the private education of a handful of students. i will not cut education. you can count on it. my budget proposal comes our schools and make sure that you have teachers in your classroom. our schools are in crisis. we'll talk about that tonight. we need a strong and decisive leader to lead us to this. on education, brian is not strong. he is not consistent. sharon angle would abolish the department of education. i have been a successful business executive. i have a balanced my county's budget without ever raising
taxes. i have made the tough decisions when they need to be made. strength and consistency is what the data it needs in its next governor. that is the kind of governor i will be for you. i would like to thank andre agassi preparatory academy for assisting the debate. >> mr. sandoval. >> good evening ladies and gentlemen. i would like to thank mr. agassi and his foundation for sponsoring this very important event. i think there is one thing my opponent and i agree on and that is that education is important. i grew up in this state. i was educated in the state. i had an opportunity to serve all of you in the legislature. i had an opportunity to serve you as the chief bank regulator in the state of nevada.
i served a short attorney- general and as a federal judge. what would i give up a lifetime appointment to run for governor? the answer is very simple. i care deeply about the state. i had a unique opportunity to serve the state and lead the security of that appointment to try and improve what we have here. as i said, education is extremely important to me. tomorrow morning i am going to take my 6-year-old daughter to first grade. it is a big day for her. our education system is in peril. we need to do something fast. we need to challenge the system. we need to shake up the status quo. that is why i delivered a plan, a very specific plan, that will shake up the status quo. it calls for accountability in education. it calls for choice to give every parent an opportunity to decide where they will send their kids.
it calls for control. it calls for the end of teachers tenure. we cannot wait any longer. i am not going to wait five years. there are thousands of children in our educational system. we have to do something now. my plan will do that. thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. [applause] >> we are going to ask questions of each candidate specifically, but this first question -- >> we began with mr. reid. how can you improve education at a time when every budget at the state level will be cut? >> great question. the budget is more than lines on a piece of paper. i offered a balanced budget proposal that balances the budget and protect education. i do not cut 1 cent from
education funding. i worked with my wife, my favorite teacher, on the education plan. we worked for 10 months on our plan. we talk to parents, principals, teachers, administrators, so- called education experts. it does not matter what you call a school. it can be a charter school or a magnet school. it can be a traditional public schools. the hallmark of a successful school is a school that has a principle that can lead. teachers that can be creative endeavor parents that are engaged. what we need in nevada is a plan that will allow every school in nevada to be innovative and do the kinds of things you see done at audrey agassi college preparatory school. my plan will do that. it will cut administrative costs by taking the power away from bureaucrats and giving it to the people that should have bit --
principals, teachers, and parents at the local level with local control. that is what my plan would do. i do not cut a nickel from the budget to get there. i am the only person on the states that can say that. bryan, there is something we need to clear up. i had been pointing out that your budget proposal would cut more from education bathan jim gibbons ever did. here is the numbers. $533 million. it this is not the right number, how much are you going to cut? no response. thank you. the budget issue is important. >> i read your plan. it cuts education as well. you do not know your plan. you have cat